Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 24th, 2023

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

You can email that to the clerk afterwards.

[Adrienne Davidson-Helgerson]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

Go ahead, Mr. Desilets. You have six minutes.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their service to the country, not to mention their patience.

Ms. Davidson‑Helgerson, you are adamant that the system is broken, and I believe you. In my four years on the committee, I've heard enough to know that what you're saying is true.

Can you be more specific? How is the system dysfunctional? Which area? Do you think it's possible to overcome the problem?

[Adrienne Davidson-Helgerson]

The question is on how the system is dysfunctional. I come from a business background, so I'm viewing it through that lens—as well as a counselling and psychology background—so I see how things could be streamlined and made more efficient.

I'm wondering whether they are consulting the right people who can really streamline these things, but there are different things that are unique to the military and VAC that maybe we can't change.

With regard to the process for women applying to our program, first of all, they are coming to us and they are not functioning well, yet nobody is allowed to advocate for them and help them through the system. They're not allowed to make calls on their behalf. We can't call the CMs.

If we have a veteran who is actively suicidal and we are concerned about this person, we know that they need treatment and we can provide that treatment, if we find out...I send an email and I do their first name, dot, last name—I hope I get the spelling right—and most of the time I'm successful. Then they're mad that we have contacted them directly to consult about one of their client's cases.

In the whole process, there's the lack of transparency, the absolute no communication. You can never get a direct phone number. It is almost impossible to get a direct phone number for the person's case management team. That is insane, when you're supposed to be collaborating with the health care team. We can't even access them.

Are there any other aspects of the process that you think we could...?

[Dr. Christina Rochford]

I think you're speaking to it well.

I particularly wanted Adrienne to speak, because she is our director of operations, and from a business perspective, there are solutions here. There are systems that could be put in place to streamline this whole process: when people are first released from CAF, the referral to VAC, and VAC reaching out, doing an assessment and determining a care plan and the needs. This is not rocket science, particularly for somebody who has an HR business background.

There are solutions. We already have some ideas about how to make this process more efficient, more holistic and more accessible.

Quite frankly, I know the system, and I have a heck of a time navigating VAC. I spend most of my time in my office trying to make calls on veterans' behalf and getting blocked, blocked, blocked. If I have the privilege of being given a phone number, I'm told, “Under no circumstances are you allowed to share this phone number with a veteran, and do not email or even allow the veteran to have the email address.”

It's lack of transparency. It's secrecy. There's this huge power differential that's created. It should be a collaborative effort in terms of seeking help. If I'm having trouble, and I'm resourced and I can usually get through channels, what is it like for someone with PTSD, who maybe is struggling with computers, for one thing, but also is struggling to answer the phone, is struggling to go forward?

Quite honestly, I've even had therapists, psychiatrists, psychologists, saying, “In all good conscience, I have to stop my veteran from dealing with VAC, applying for your program. They are getting so triggered, they're almost suicidal. This is bad for their mental health.” What's with that? Something is wrong there.

There are solutions, and we'd be happy to share those solutions with you about how to make the system work.

[Adrienne Davidson-Helgerson]

I think it's almost as simple as a modernization of the technology—IT things.

Anna-Lisa shared with me earlier that there are nine steps just to log into the My VAC Account. Can they have an app? Can they have more streamlined communications? Can you automate some of this stuff? We still have to send faxes and wait five to seven business days, and then they lose the fax. The CMs are not even trained on how to digitally upload faxes to a central server. There's all this stuff that's just so antiquated.

I also think it's important, just from a cultural perspective, that you want the Canadian public to respect this institution. If it's viewed as old and antiquated and irrelevant, then are you going to attract the best and the brightest? Probably not. It's the number one top employer—I don't know if that's a fact, but it's a huge employer—so it should act like it. It should be setting an excellent example on the world stage, and it should perform the best and have the best systems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have 45 seconds.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

If VAC were a private company, would it still be in business?

[Adrienne Davidson-Helgerson]

I'm not getting translation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You don't have translation.

[Adrienne Davidson-Helgerson]

I don't, but I hear it going other places.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Just wait one minute. We'll make sure that the translation is working.

I'm going to speak French to see whether you're getting the interpretation.

Okay. You now have translation.

You may continue, Mr. Desilets. You have 35 seconds.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Ms. Davidson‑Helgerson, you are in the private sector, the business community. If VAC were a private company, would it still be in business?

[Adrienne Davidson-Helgerson]

Oh, my gosh, no, it absolutely wouldn't. It needs to first of all create value. It's treating veterans like they're the assets of the company, but they are just....

No, it wouldn't survive. It really wouldn't. It is so unproductive and inefficient. Its customers are very unhappy. Its assets are very unhappy. I think you need a top management consultant to come in and just shake things up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Desilets.

I would like to remind members of the committee that we also have, by video conference, Eleanor Taylor from True Patriot Love Foundation.

Ms. Blaney, you have six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Through the chair, I would like to start first with Senator Busson.

Thank you so much for being here. I want to thank you for reminding us that we need to remember the RCMP veterans. I really appreciate that. It's good to be held to account. I will say that indirectly I was talking about them when I talked about the gold digger clause, but I didn't mention that directly. I think it's really important feedback, so I appreciate that. I also want to thank you for mentioning the gold digger clause. Everybody knows it's a passion of mine. We continue to do work on that.

I would just like to acknowledge the ongoing work by the RCMP women veterans council. I think the work there is really powerful. Of course, it's chaired by Jane Hall from B.C.

I also want to acknowledge that it was RCMP women who had their “me too” moment before the CAF. They did a lot of tremendous work around the CAF-DND sexual misconduct class action. We learned a lot from that. I want to recognize the hard work those women did. It's never easy to stand up and say the thing that is hard.

One thing that I find troubling about this complete study, and that I have no remedy for, is that we have to ask veterans to come and bleed in front of us so that we can put something on paper to try to prove that this is the reality. That does make me struggle a lot.

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on the RCMP double-dipping pension clawback, and if you feel that has been handled. Is that something you could talk to the committee about a bit?

[Beverley Busson]

I'm not really prepared to discuss it in detail, because it's a complex issue. Certainly at the moment it still exists, the double-dipping of pension versus, as you were referring to, other security benefits for veterans. It's a huge issue for veterans—I know that, especially in cases in which people aren't even aware that it's going to happen. All of a sudden people's pensions change and they're not even aware of it. Certainly, it's more than an irritant for people who are planning their life in a certain way to have a right-angled change.

It's something that I think should be revisited, because both of those things in a way are earned.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you for that. I think that's really important.

Through the chair, perhaps I can go to Ms. Rovak next.

Thank you for bleeding in front of us. I'm sorry you had to do that. I think it's really important. It's why I fought hard for there to be a trigger warning. I think it's important that we as parliamentarians understand that the reaction may be hard and that we have to carry that story with us. I promise that I will do my best to carry your story with me in the things that I move forward.

You said at the end, “I was promised.” That really had an impact on me. You also talked about the “security of truth”. I'm wondering if you could explain what those two things mean to you as a woman veteran and what you felt was not done correctly.

Does that make sense?

[Anna-Lisa Rovak]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to bring that up.

I do need to say one thing first, if I may, and it is that there was a prime example of exactly how women veterans are dealt with on a daily basis, an hourly basis, in what we saw here earlier today. I got up from the table on purpose. I didn't get up because I hurt. I didn't get up because I was triggered. I got up because I was being ignored; I was being treated with disrespect; my story was not acknowledged, and someone was using me as their platform. That is part of the problem here.

I am not someone else's platform. I am not someone else's cash cow. I am not someone else's product. I am a human being; I am a veteran, and I am strong in that.

I was very upset. It hurt, and I felt diminished. I felt so many of these negative emotions that I did almost walk out the door. The only reason I stayed here, the only reason I did not walk out the door, was that I had a couple of people get up, come over to me and say, “We still want to hear you.” To that, I honour.

Now, in response to “I was promised”, and in response to the “security of truth”, one of the biggest things I have discovered is that with Veterans Affairs we are promised certain things. I had to go to my case manager and I had to negotiate what I was going to do for any type of training and any type of care. When I say “negotiate”, that is exactly the correct term: It's a negotiation.

Veterans Affairs has this habit of changing case managers very quickly. They also have a habit of passing us over to contractors. Every single time we have a promise in hand—we have already negotiated what we need—we get passed over to somebody else, and then we have to renegotiate. We have to restart from the beginning. In a six-month period, I had to tell my horror story, my rape story, three times. That was in six months. That was suicide attempt number one, by the way.

I don't think there's a single person who can actually understand the trauma that someone goes through. When I said earlier that Veterans Affairs has created more trauma for me than the military did, I am really not exaggerating. Why would I have to share my experience three times to three different types of experts to prove my truth so that they can change the negotiated process that I've already started? That is part of that promise. It keeps being renegotiated. It keeps being cancelled. Every time I turn around, that happens. Not only am I being negated, but it's almost worse: I'm used. In the military, I wasn't used. As a veteran, I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Rovak, and thank you, Ms. Blaney.

Now we are going to start the second round of questions.

I'd like to start with Mrs. Wagantall, please.

You have five minutes.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you, Chair, and through you, thank you, ladies.

I'd like to get up and yell and dance at what I've heard here today. Thank you so much for what you're bringing to this committee in what we need to know.

I have five minutes. I am going to do my best to give two questions, each 30 seconds long, and you'll have two minutes each to respond.

I'd like to start with Ms. Rovak.

Thank you so much for your testimony and sharing your life. I wrote down that it's absolutely crucial, from your perspective, that you need “a say” in your own care. This is something that I've heard over and over again for eight years. It's like you don't have that opportunity. Would you like to explain what that means and what your expectations are to be able to have a say in your own care?

[Anna-Lisa Rovak]

When I discovered about my mental health care, I finally had an answer to why my life had been such a challenge up until that point. I went off on my own. I had an experience with a case manager where he tried to get me into his hotel room. At that point, I had completely stopped talking to Veterans Affairs under any circumstance. The only reason I contacted Veterans Affairs again was to assist somebody else, and we'll just leave it at that.

As for my own care, the very first time I went to Veterans Affairs and said, “Hey, listen, I need help,” they put me on the veterans transition program. I was on that program with five RCMP members. Not one of us came out of that program sane. Not one of us came out of that program in good shape. That was the only one that Veterans Affairs recommended and actually demanded that I take. It was not good.

After that, I decided, because I have a.... I love my children. My children have decided they want nothing to do with me because of the damage I apparently have, so I started taking different programs. What I discovered was that, number one, having a program that is mixed, men and women, especially women working with male veterans, I am sorry, but.... In one of the programs I went on, I was the only female veteran. I was physically assaulted once, and I was verbally assaulted by three other men. That was in a five-day period. That is not safe.

I went to a couple of other programs that were not trauma-related. It was difficult for them to understand that I have no addictions. I do not drink. I do not smoke cigarettes. I do not take drugs. The only medications I take are prescribed to me by my psychiatrist. I'm not dissing marijuana and all that kind of stuff, but for me, that was not the way I needed it to be.

One of the biggest and most beneficial programs I ever took was at the Davidson Institute, and there are a couple of reasons. Number one, I stayed in a hotel, and I had the choice to move hotel rooms when I was not feeling safe in one of the hotels. I had my own vehicle, so I could walk away. I had a choice that in the mornings, if I was having a really bad day, I could call in and say, “Hey, listen....” At the same time, they knew what was going on with me. They checked in with me. There was that type of stuff.

They also had EMDR, and they had all the different traditional-type programs. Having a choice and being able to try other types of therapies, which is what their program does to see if anything fits, was wonderful, because in middle B.C.—northern B.C. according to people from Vancouver—there's nothing. It was such an opportunity to be able to do that.

I have been in other programs since, and being able to choose the type of program is paramount. I was told I had to be institutionalized. I was told I had to go into one of those programs where they were going to take away my cellphone. I've worked for five years with my psychiatrist to get my meds perfect. I am very happy that way. Nobody is taking my meds away from me.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I really appreciate this, Anna-Lisa. Thank you so much.

I think we're hearing something we need to pay attention to.

I have one minute.

Very quickly, Dr. Rochford, or whoever would like to respond, this referral to a large patient addiction treatment centre is not news to me. I hear this often. Those addiction centres are not just for veterans either, are they? I've heard from veterans who are sent there, and they end up getting drugs peddled to them by people who come in just to.... This is a mess.

It's not veteran-centric. Can you talk to that point of how it is not meeting the needs of the veterans who are being directed there?

[Dr. Christina Rochford]

We've heard some of the stories, too, and we hear this all the time. Sometimes, it seems, at the end of the day, they end up with us after they've been to numerous programs and have been retraumatized. Certainly these big addiction centres are institutions for people with severe addictions. It seems, especially of late, because PTSD has become a bit of a “flavour of the month”, if you will, the addiction centres have added on a PTSD component, but there actually is not much treatment. Women and men with PTSD are thrown into these big centres, and we've all heard about how people are treated. You're right; they're open to absolutely anybody.

We actually work with—